the United States, both State and federal. Taken in connection with Professor Hart's companion volume on "Actual Government," it furnishes a comprehensive and satisfactory presentation of the whole American governmental system. Professor Hart has given us a description of the actual workings of the State and federal governments and their various departments. With him "the text of constitutions and of statutes is only the enveloping husk; the real kernel is that personal interest and personal action which vitalizes government." Hence he devotes much attention to what is extraconstitutional but none the less important in our government. Justice McClain's work, on the other hand, is an exposition of the fundamental principles of an established system. He seeks to enable his reader "to reach a rational and correct conception of the nature and meaning of the constitutions of the United States and of his State, and to understand the essential features of the governments provided for by such constitutions." Both books treat the American governmental system as a whole. National, State and local governments are all dealt with as integral parts of the system. The two books form a noteworthy contribution to the study of political institutions in America.

Like the other books of the American Citizen Series, Justice McClain's "Constitutional Law" is fully provided with bibliographical information. There are also some pages of suggestions for students, teachers, and readers as to the best methods of using the book. For non-professional purposes it is clearly the best work on the subject available.

W. H. G.

The

South Atlantic Quarterly.

A Plea for the Union of Methodism in America BY JOHN C. KILGO,

President of Trinity College

The issue which sixty-two years ago divided Episcopal Methodism of America into two ecclesiastical bodies was a political issue. There was no contention as to the fundamental doctrines nor the general principles of polity in the Methodist Church. Abolitionism was a political sentiment and looked to political sentiment for its promotion. Besides, it was necessarily a sectional issue.

However, from the days of Jefferson and Hamilton all political questions became sectional questions. It was the aim of Jefferson to develop American democracy after the type of French democracy, while Hamilton was unyielding in his purposes to shape it after the type of English democracy. The fundamental issue of the nation's character lay in the issue between these two men, and every question which arose, whether it was assumption of debts, defense of American commerce, tariff protection, states' rights, or abolition, became a sectional question.

It was not possible to keep the churches of America free from the sectional form which national issues took, and least of all was it possible to keep the Methodist Church clear of it. Its members in the South were involved by every consideration in the institution of slavery and only disaster could come of the southern ministry taking an aggressive attitude against the institution; the members of the Methodist Church throughout the North were equally committed to abolitionism and could not be otherwise. This was a condition-a sectional condition-which the Church had nothing to do

with creating, but all to do with in serving the people among whom it labored.

The General Conference of 1844 found separation the wise course of action, a course which it would have avoided had there been another way open. The representatives from each section were painfully conscious of the crisis that was upon them and the hesitancy with which they came to the inevitable conclusion shows the sorrow which they all suffered. The spirit, as well as the terms of separation, were highly creditable to the sincerity and brotherly sympathies of those who acted in this grave matter.

Had the spirit in which the division was agreed to suffered no change the two bodies of Methodism would have filled their missions in the nation and held each other in the esteem of a holy fellowship. But the sentiment of abolitionism grew intense and passionate while anti-abolitionism kept pace in its spirit of opposition. The inevitable clash came and the issue which divided Methodism gathered to itself all the passion and hatred of a dreadful war. Southern Methodists and Northern Methodists had fought and suffered and died in the cause which only a few years previous had led to their friendly severance into two ecclesiastical bodies.

War hatreds and sectional enmities had put a new force into all the relations of the two sections of the nation and the two bodies of Episcopal Methodism were driven far apart by these new conditions. These feelings engendered by the war have been provoked and perpetuated by very many unnecessary and unbrotherly deeds and words which have tended to delay the possible return of the two bodies of Episcopal Methodism to their original fellowship. No good can come of rehearsing any of these things which do discredit to the spirit of a Christian organization. Each side has much to repent of, each side has much to forgive; while neither side should be slow to practice both these virtues.

But the chief issue before Methodism in America is not a defense of the past, not to prove the rights of differing bodies, or to justify the course of each division. The supreme question is a re-union into a permanent fellowship worthy of the great Providence that has protected this Ameri

can nation and the divine spirit which should in all things control the faith and feelings of the Christian church. The time has come when separation cannot be justified, and the apologetic attitude which it forces will only result in a weakened faith and a wasted energy. All the issues which led to separation have been settled for all time and the memory of dead issues should not persist with more power than the necessities of vital duties and tasks which call for the combined zeal of all men in all quarters of the earth.

The question of states' rights is a settled question. The meaning of the Constitution of the nation may still be discussed as an academic question, but that document was virtually rewritten at Gettysburg and Appomatox, and whether Calhoun or Webster was the sounder in his views is now no matter of concern. Lee and Grant found the verdict of the discussion and the case will not again be opened.

It has been forever settled that slavery cannot exist on this continent. The South has accepted the settlement of the slavery question and regards the freedom of the negro as a greater blessing to the white man than it was to the negro. The relation of the two races is working itself to a sane solution and, is accepted by wise men in all parts of the nation.

There never has been any difference in the fundamental doctrines of the two branches of Methodism. The Twentyfive Articles of Religion have remained unchanged as the creed of American Methodism.

The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and the Methodist Episcopal Church have held faithfully to an episcopal form of government. The constitution of each branch of Episcopal Methodism protects its polity against a rash and radical change.

The early and heroic history of Methodism in America is the common heritage of both branches of Methodism. Their doctrinal unity is sanctified by the glorious labors of that host of men who wrought in the early times of the nation's life and to whose labors must be credited very much of the nation's prosperity.

Both of these branches of Methodism have their home in America and get their civil protection from the same great

government. Their members are citizens of this republic and must be concerned in all that is vital to the nation's life and progress. The perpetuation of sectionalism is no credit to any part of the nation and it has received the condemnation of all patriotic citizens. Commerce and industry have become a bond of union between the wide sections of the republic and men who have met in the markets have forgotten all the feelings of a former strife. Recent events in our national history have called out the patriotic fidelity of American citizens and bound them in a new and stronger national brotherhood.

Within the past few years efforts have been made to conform the two branches of Methodism. These efforts have been fruitful in securing a common catechism, a common hymnal, and a common form of worship. Besides these agreements have been reached by which missionary operations in foreign lands are harmoniously organized.

In all matters of vital importance Episcopal Methodism is at one and its complete union seems to be suggested by every consideration. Those who think it not advisable base their opinions upon considerations scarcely sufficient to defend the division between the churches. None of these objections have any direct relation to the original issue which brought about the separation, but are conditions which have developed through the experiences of later years.

One of the chief causes set forth why it seems inadvisable, if not even impossible, for the two branches of Methodism to re-unite, is the widely different views which the two churches hold concerning the negro problem. The southern church suspects that the northern church entertains the idea of social equality, and the northern church suspects that the southern church utterly disregards the claims of the negro to all just opportunities of progress. Very much in these two notions is mere assumption intensified by feelings of suspicion which have come out of the strains of former conflicts. Neither side has been entirely patient and painstaking to ascertain the real attitude of the other to this delicate and difficult problem and, hence, much careless talk has been indulged in on both sides.